Sunday, May 23, 2010

o what our constitution says that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"? It depends on what the meaning of "shall" shall mean. Right? Besides, those words were written so long ago. Things have changed a lot since then. Why does anyone in office need to follow such an outdated piece of moldy parchment?

No, its words can't possibly be relevant to us today. A president should be able to do and not do whatever he or she wants.

That's what "top political strategist Woody Allen thinks (sic)": "It would be good if he could be dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly." Sounds so much more modern, relevant, and progressive.

Why then should anyone be surprised that the present occupant of the White House thinksfeels that, yes, he can keep fundamentally transforming the office of the president of the United States of America so that words like—

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

can finally be relegated to where they belong — in the past — and thus be summarily dismissed?

There's really little point to taking oaths anymore, much less honoring them.

In what is developing into a standoff between states and the federal government that could be bigger than gun control or even health care, 17 states have launched versions of Arizona's immigration law, even as federal officials say they may not bother to process illegal aliens caught by the states.

Now, see? Federal officials don't have to do anything they don't want. What does it matter the constitution says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion"?

Those officials are also getting ready to grant the invadersillegal immigrantsundocumented Americans amnesty. So, no, no one can consider them invaders anymore.

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, which has been trying to get officials to address the open southern border for years, warned the consequences could be dire.

"Over the last couple days, Obama and the chief of ICE have refused to honor their oaths of office," he said. "Their constitutional requirement is to enforce existing laws.

There you go again wanting federal officials to do things they don't want. How unprogressive of you.

Only a backwards-thinking oaf still thinks that things like oaths and constitutions should have any meaning in this day and age.

"They've told the American public to go eat cake," he said.

Presumably because cake is good for you and for the children. We wouldn't be surprised if there's a Cake-Eating Mandate™ in their new health care law. You either eat the cake they say you must eat or get fined. Regardless whether you do, you must report on your income tax returns how much cake, if any, you ate each year so, yes, the Internal Revenue Service can keep tabs on you and all your cake-eating "choices" (and punish you for all your non-cake-eating ones).

His organization is assembling the list of state efforts to emulate the Arizona law, which makes it illegal under state as well as federal law to be in the state without documentation.

"Seventeen states are now filing versions of Arizona's SB 1070, which is designed to help local police enforce America's existing immigration laws," ALIPAC said in a report today.

How many times do we have to say this? Federal officials don't have to enforce anything they don't want to enforce, any thing in the constitution or laws of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding.

The report said numerous national and local polls indicate 60 to 81 percent of Americans support local police enforcing immigration laws.

What do regular Americans know? That same percentage probably thinks the constitution and laws should be enforced by federal officials.

We need to indØctrinate them moreround them up and send them to ReeducatiØn Camps™ inform them this is no longer the case. Hasn't been for decades.

"Our national network of activists have been working overtime trying to help the state of Arizona and the brave Arizonans who have passed this bill," he said. "Arizona no longer stands alone and we have now documented state lawmakers filing, or announcing they will file, versions of the Arizona bill in seventeen states! We will not stop until all states are protected from invasion as required by the U.S. Constitution."

Your imaginary friend U.S. Constitution can't help you. Might as well believe leprechauns will come pouring up over the edge of our flat Earth, hop on their unicorns, and ride in to chase invadersillegal immigrantsundocumented Americans back across another now-imaginary thing called the border.

He insisted that only the federal government should respond to the problem.

Like it has been spendidly doing all this time. —What? It hasn't? Not one bit?

”[T]heLos House Homeland Security Committee has failed to pass a single bill to secure the southwest border since Democrats took control of Congress three years ago.”

OK, OK. Then not responding to problems should be deemedthelos much more modern, relevant, and progressive way of "doing" things as well.

"I don't think (sic) the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton said.

No, a state actively enforcing the law of the land can't be the solution. It may have been a very long timefew years ago. But not in these Modern Times™.

First off, the highest law of the land (aka thelos United States Constitution) is an outdated piece of moldy parchment that's both irrelevant and unprogressive. No, no one can require or expect any federal official to preserve, protect, or defend it, much less follow or support it. Second, even if it wasn't, thelos present occupant of thelos White House has appointed federal officials who're declaring they don't have to honor their oaths to do so, much less go about faithfully executing their respective offices. That would be too unmodern. Third, even if they had to, everyone clearly knows or should know that those same federal officials can't possibly find time to read any part of it, much less all of it, since it's a lot longer, apparently, than thelos Arizona law.

Yes, we can plainly see that none of them has bothered to read either it or thelos Arizona law.

So just how do federal officials enforce or understand something they've never read?

Gheen said the Arizona law and the plans it has spawned in other states is a victory for Americans. But he said those are just battles, and winning the war will require success in elections this fall.

A "comprehensive" solution to the problem will arrive when there are enough "hostile" members of Congress to tell the administration to uphold the existing immigration and border laws or the impeachments will start, he said.

Impeachment is something created by thelos constitution. Maladministration officials aren't paying any heed to anything else created by it. Why should they pay any to impeachment? Just ask that preeminent legal scholar and constitutional expert Professor Emeritus Woody Allen, Esq. if he believes they should.

"[We need to send] to Washington a hostile Congress that is going to encircle the executive branch and tell them to [follow the law] or we'll impeach all the way down to the speaker of the House," he said.

Gheen said he is alarmed over the pending release, expected sometime just before the election, of a movie called "Machete," which reportedly is the story of a Mexican uprising in the United States.

Gheen said the message in the movie reportedly is that Americans will either submit to the "rape" of their land or else.

He said he believes the project is intended to create turmoil just as the mid-term elections draw near.

If you believe executive branch officials can ever find within themselves the courage to deem that any such movie, no matter how clearly it violently targets and racially profiles American citizens, is outdated, irrelevant, or unprogressive, then we've got some unicorn-riding leprechauns residing near the Earth's flat edge whom we want you to meet.

"There is nothing as important right now as getting [people] fully involved with all the campaigns," he said.

ALIPAC already has helped to pass some form of immigration enforcement legislation in more than 30 states. And Gheen has developed a national reputation for defeating socially progressive plans to hand out licenses, in-state tuition and other taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens.

"It is incumbent upon our states to protect American lives, property, jobs, wages, security, and health, when the executive branch fails to honor its constitutional responsibility to do so by enforcing our existing border and immigration laws," he said.

Why can't losinvadersillegal immigrantsundocumented Americans agree to follow all our immigration laws like everyone else who enters our country? What makes them so special that they can thumb their noses at those laws?

Who do they think they are? Federal officials?

If you're one of the backwards-thinking oafs still asking any of these questions, no doubt you also believe that borders have meaning and laws should be enforced. Probably even read the constitution one or more times.

Where did you get such unmodern, irrelevant, and unprogressive ideas? At your last Ku Klux Klan meeting — right after it burned a cross and lynched several dozen minorities?

When are you going to stop living in the eighteenth century?

How about taking off your white hood and coming into our post-constitutional, post-law-enforcing, post-oath-honoring post-borders era for a change?

To monitor the growing number of states considering similar legislation, ALIPAC utilizes a public forum in which members can update the organization with news articles and other information from states where the push for an Arizona-like law is making headway.

Public forums should be deemed— Oh, never mind. You know the drill.

In Arizona's neighboring state Utah, for example, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, reportedly is drafting a bill that would similarly require immigrants to carry proof of status and require law enforcement officers to check for it.

"Utah is seen as state that welcomes illegal immigrants. We almost encourage it with driving privilege cards and in-state tuition for illegals," Sandstrom told the Salt Lake Tribune. "With Arizona making the first step in this direction, Utah needs to pass a similar law or we will see a huge influx of illegals. The real issue is just establishing a rule of law in our state."

Across the country in Maryland, Baltimore's WBAL-TV reported earlier that State Delegate Patrick McDonough, R-Baltimore County, is drafting a bill identical to Arizona's. He's also planning to poll his fellow legislators before the bill is filed.

Let's review.

The constitution is an outdated piece of moldy parchment. It's long past having any relevancy.

Woody Allen loves dictators.

Contrary to popular belief, yes, federal officials can choose which laws they want to enforce or not enforce.

Information is a distraction. Believe only what dEar Leader says.

Federal officials' aversion to reading is fundamentally transforming the United States of America.